How Will SmartTrack and GO/RER Co-exist?

Metrolinx has published an update on studies of how the proposed SmartTrack service will be integrated with its own GO/RER (Regional Express Rail) offering. This will be considered at their board meeting on February 10.

This covers several issues, and begins to nail down just what SmartTrack might, or might not, resemble that is beyond the scale of postcard election literature. As we already know, major changes are planned to the western leg where the Crosstown West LRT will take over the function proposed for SmartTrack beyond Mt. Dennis. To the east, SmartTrack remains in the GO Stouffville corridor, but the Scarborough Subway Extension (SSE) has been scaled back to a one-stop line serving only the Town Centre, and the Crosstown East LRT will provide service to eastern Scarborough.

What is GO RER?

This graphic is amusing for its complete contrast with the way that Metrolinx/GO presented electrification of their services during early days of public consultation. That hit a low point when it was suggested that electric trains might not work in snow.

Note that the official line now is that lots of cities use this type of service, and that electrification is an integral part of the package.

Metrolinx owes us all an apology for their initial foot-dragging and misinformation campaign. Now if only they had been more supportive of LRT during the dark days of Rob Ford.

Options for a Consolidated SmartTrack/RER Service

Lest there be any remaining doubts, it is clear that “SmartTrack” is nothing more than GO Trains that stop a bit more frequently, not a fundamentally different service. How much more frequently depends on the option for service levels, and which incremental costs would be chargeable to SmartTrack capital and operating budgets.

In all scenarios below, the service on the Kitchener and Stouffville corridors is through-routed at Union to avoid delays for turnaround time at that busy location.

Option A provides much more frequent service than the basic RER and adds five stations. Notably it does not include the extra SmartTrack stations in Scarborough whose purpose is to offset the need for stations on the subway extension.

Option B runs a mix of express and local services each on a 10 minute headway. Three stations are added over Option A and these provide the SSE-equivalent stops in Scarborough.

Option C operates added service over the base RER proposal only in the peak period with 5 to 10 minute headways. Most of the stations from Option B remain on the map except that there is only one rather than two stops between Union and Bloor.

Option D has the same service design as Option C, but without the extra Scarborough stations.

Through these options, it is worth noting that none of the options provides a frequent (12 trains/hour) service in the parallel-to-SSE corridor. Options A has frequent trains, but few stops, and the other options get down to at best 7 trains/hour at the “local” or “SmartTrack” stops.

The SmartTrack publicity material touted very high ridership numbers based on a service of 10-12 trains/hour just for SmartTrack, never mind for GO services using the same track. This level of SmartTrack service was a dubious claim during the election, and now has clearly been scaled back. The potential ridership of SmartTrack will not reach the stratospheric levels claimed by the Tory election machine.

In all cases, the suggested new station locations are subject to verification by the new station analysis described later in this article. There is no guarantee that sites such as “Liberty Village” are operationally feasible, and it is worth remembering how often Metrolinx has dismissed this as a potential location.

Closely related to the service designs are the many locations where construction will be needed to provide for grade separations (rail-to-road and rail-to-rail), additional trackage, and additional property. Union Station capacity is a particular concern not just for train movements but for passenger handling. The bill for all of this, and especially for any additional works triggered by the higher SmartTrack service levels, will fall on Toronto Council.

At the same time, there will likely be a move to merge SmartTrack and GO fares, at least over the moderate distance where the services co-exist, along with a push for higher subway fares as proposed in the Fare Integration Strategy. This is hardly the deal voters signed up for in the Tory election with higher fares and capital costs just to keep an election promise alive. The Mayor has a lot of explaining to do.

Meanwhile on Eglinton West

As previously reported, the SmartTrack branch to the Airport Corporate Centre has completely fallen off of the map and been replaced by “Crosstown West”, aka the Eglinton West LRT line resurrected from Transit City. The original version of this (with the station layout at Mt. Dennis adjusted to reflect the final north-of-Eglinton alignment) appears below.

Metrolinx proposes five options for this corridor, two of which involve some degree of grade separation.

Option 5 (all grade separated) has few stops and most closely duplicates the function that the SmartTrack spur was intended to fulfill. However, it provides little local service and exists primarily to serve the airport area. Option 4 is similar in stop spacing, but runs on the surface between arterials. Whether this is actually possible given the need to dive under so many of them is quite another matter.

Options 1-3 have progressively fewer stops ranging down from the original Transit City line (1) to a limited stop operation (3) common with the grade separated variants, but entirely on the surface. It has been no secret that Metrolinx attempted to remove stops from the eastern leg of the Crosstown line, but with limited success. Meanwhile, the City’s demand projections for Crosstown West almost certainly depend on more frequent stations, and the distribution of trip origins would make interesting reading as a check on the Metrolinx station options.

Back in Scarborough

Beyond the SmartTrack service options, there is nothing new in this report on the Crosstown East proposal beyond a general observation regarding updating the design and reviewing stop locations. As on the west side, Metrolinx needs to consider the types of trip Crosstown East will support. If this line simply turns into an express operation from Kennedy Station to University of Toronto Scarborough Campus, then all of the fine words about improving travel within Scarborough from Jennifer Keesmaat’s report will be meaningless.

It is not clear whether Metrolinx and the City are really on the same page, yet, as to the function of the surface sections of the Crosstown route.

Station Evaluations

In a separate report, Metrolinx receives an update on the evaluation of possible station locations. This report shares with the Fare Integration paper a focus on process without tipping Metrolinx’ hand on actual outcomes. However, we can get some idea of which stations on the SmartTrack corridors are considered reasonable simply from those included in the configurations above.

Preliminary work used a long list of 40 attributes to evaluate suggested locations, but this has been winnowed down to 9. Locations that do not perform well in the evaluation will be set aside from further study.

The nine surviving attributes are described in the table below.

Further discussions will occur in coming consultation rounds and we may finally get to see which stations Metrolinx considers as reasonable additions to their network.

In the corridors shared with SmartTrack, several stations in the long list do not appear in any of the options described above.

The Problem of Station Access

The more important section of the Station Analysis report deals with how riders get to GO stations and services.

The “last mile” problem is the biggest challenge facing GO’s ability to ramp up service for frequent all-day and bidirectional travel. If riders cannot get to GO stations, or if the mode they might use is impractical (parking lot is full, off peak transit service is infrequent or non-existent), then all the service GO might run is of little value.

Pedestrian access is important to any transit station because little infrastructure is needed to support it, and there is no time-of-day or directional dependence. For those who are already in walking distance, GO already has a good slice of the market walking to stations. The problem, however, is that as a proportion of total demand, pedestrians are only 10% of the total.

For cycling, the situation is even worse. Only a small proportion of GO users cycle to stations, and the provision of bike-friendly roads is not a high priority once one is well beyond central Toronto. Moreover, for counter-peak travel, a large pool of shared cycles would be needed at stations for riders arriving outbound to complete their journeys.

Local transit does not support GO well especially during off-peak periods. More than one effect is at work here.

First off, many local services drop back to wider off-peak headways or may disappear completely. Moreover, the GO station might not be a major destination on a local transit system when there are no trains present, or even for a lighter level of off-peak ridership. A GO station might distort local route planning if there is no other reason to access a station site than for the train station. (Similar distortions exist in the local TTC network at certain major terminals.)

Better local bus service will not come about simply because it sounds like a nice idea, but because someone is prepared to fund better service. This should be an integral part of the GO/RER operating budget whether the buses are painted two-tone green or not.

GO Transit has a long history with parking, but their ability to grow with this mode is coming to an end. Parking is expensive and it consumes space that could be used for development at stations. Moreover, parking tends to fill up early in the day and serves only the standard suburb-to-core commuting pattern, not the more complex mix of journeys GO/RER hopes to attract. It is self-evident that parking does not address the last mile problem unless there is a large fleet of rental cars, or some type of local jitney service absent good local transit. As the text below notes: “Continually expanding parking at GO rail stations is not a sustainable strategy and does not align with policies and plans.” This will require a major change in the GO Transit culture and the political model that equates building parking structures with transit expansion.

Finally, there is the question of pick-up and drop-off access whether it be with a friend or colleague, or via some type of taxi service operating, in effect, as a demand-driven local transit service. Whether this is financially viable remains to be seen. Metrolinx also talks of self-driving vehicles as a future “solution”, but this is more wishful thinking than a realistic plan.

“Kiss and ride” travel is well suited to conventional commuting where the car stays “at home” to serve suburban travel while the commuter uses transit to reach a centrally located job. Other trip types, notably off peak and counter peak, are another matter because they may not occur at regular times, and because there is no “car at home” a traveller can meet. About one seventh of GO riders use this mode today, but the scope for expansion may be limited by road capacity and by the presumed availability of a vehicle and driver to perform this service.

Even a move to contracted taxi service or self-driving vehicles (presuming the technology becomes viable) implies a greater participation by GO and provincial funding for what is effectively a local transit service. There could be a private sector market, but it will almost certainly require guaranteed demand levels and revenues to provide service at all operating hours, not just the profitable peak hours and destinations.

51 thoughts on “How Will SmartTrack and GO/RER Co-exist?”

Comment navigation

“One issue that is of importance to cyclists: the continued existence of the West End Railpath – is it staying or being reclaimed? Many beyond cyclists prize it; yet the murkiness around new tracks or whatever means it’s dubious, especially the proposed Extension now just having gone through an EA process to Notice of Completion and appeal process almost done.”

The east (north in GO talk) platform at Bloor street is being built to be a double sided island like the west (south) platform. Everything is in place for an extra track to the east (north) side of it. This would infringe on the space used for the railpath but not necessarily eliminate it. I fear that you may be expected to make a sacrifice for the greater good of Metrolinx.

Mark Rejhon says

“Many stations move more people per platform than Union does. Also, as one of the leads of the Hamilton LRT citizen advocacy, I also know more about rail corridors internationally, and it’s astounding how inefficiently the GO network is currently utilized. I am a regular writer of the GO mega-articles, including visiting construction sites.”

Being a writer of GO Mega Articles does not make one an expert, but it does mean that you probably know more than the average person. Also the requirements of an LRT corridor and a commuter rail one are very different except for the two rails. Do any of the stations that you mention that “move more people per platform than Union does” have to work with Union’s tiny little platforms and stair cases? I have travelled on a lot of “rail corridors internationally” and realize that there are a lot of differences. Namely:

1) In Europe I only saw one freight train over 30 cars in length in 70 days of travel.
2) With much shorter distance between major cities rail lines tend to optimized for a lot of short trains rather than a few longer trains as is done here.
3) Most passenger stations are built with larger platforms than at Union and a higher level as you mention.
4) Poland was re doing a number of stations. The ones I used at Krakow and Katowice had 10 m wide platforms with very wide stair ways, escalators and elevators.

“Now that you’ve read this, please remove your FRA-specific assumptions from future replies. Yes, I realize, we’re only talking theoretically, and a 10-to-15 year timeline. And yes, I’m making a great deal of assumptions, but FRA rules is less of an iron wall here in the Metrolinx owned network, especially after full-network grade separation and PTC deployment, if made as a requirement towards making RER possible.”

Transport Canada MIGHT change the rules but no engineer or planner is going to bet the house on a MIGHT. They have to design for what is doable while preparing as best as they can for what may happen. So until we hear otherwise it is prudent to consider FRA and TC rules while hoping for a change for the better. While Metrolinx may own a lot of the track and wish to implement PTC they still have to allow CN and in some areas CP trackage rights and I doubt either of those will install PTC willingly.

QUOTE: “Transport Canada has recently indicated that they may be more flexible with the FRA structural strength requirements, which might open opportunities for GO to study a broader range of European and Asian EMUs and DMUs. Specifically, they stated their intent to require new GO vehicles to either:

* “Meet FRA structure strength and crash worthiness for passenger cars, or
* “Maintain temporal separation from freight and heavy rail passenger traffic, or
* “Operate under some form of Positive Train Control (PTC) signalling system”

It is always helpful if you cite your source so others can look it up. I doubt that any freight train has run through the Union train shed in a long time because of the limited clearance. I doubt if a high level autorack would fit and there has always been a through track to the south outside of the train shed.

After the recent accident in Germany where two trains supposedly operating under a control system that would prevent head on collisions failed, there will probably be a lot of hand wringing and re-thinking before any of the above are allowed.

“Yes, you are right, but Metrolinx owns the corridor, and assuming enough safeguards (e.g. PTC), Transport Canada may be able to give Metrolinx a waiver, to allow train-side-hugging platforms for certain tracks.”

While I realize that this was not addressed to me the two problem words are “assuming” and “may”. High platforms should meet TC rules within Union Station as the trains operate through at low speeds. The problem is that they are too narrow to start with and none of the stairs or elevators are built to the correct level, a minor problem.

I need to get on the early express train from Georgetown and see how they pass the Weston and Bloor UPX stations. I have a Transportation Research Board paper on different methods of installing movable platform edges to allow for high platforms and fast freight to use the same track. Rube Goldberg would be proud of them. The only way to get a high frequency high capacity RER/SmartTrack service is to by-pass Union and the USRC.

Mapleson, I am talking about the floor height inside a Bombaridier BiLevel, not the step height. That step is actually optional — the Utah FrontRunner has level boarding with their Bombardier BiLevels (higher platforms than GO for the same trains). Checked the train floor height and they appear to be listed.

But I stand corrected on the platform height (though it apparently varies from station to station by a little)

—
Robert/Mapleson – for the longer messages, good messages which are mostly right but will need to do longer replies over the weekend to address the rest. Have a good weekend everyone!

“There is a good analogy on the TTC subway where very short headways would overload some platforms because departing passengers would not clear before the next train pulled in. Only additional capacity off of the platform can fix this.”

If I remember correctly the TTC had this problem at King Station when they first opened the subway in 1954. They could not clear King Station’s southbound platform before the next train arrived and had to built the Melinda Street, I believe, entrance in the first year of service.

The east (north in GO talk) platform at Bloor street is being built to be a double sided island like the west (south) platform. Everything is in place for an extra track to the east (north) side of it. This would infringe on the space used for the railpath but not necessarily eliminate it. I fear that you may be expected to make a sacrifice for the greater good of Metrolinx.

Can you link to where that plan is published? I know the existing rail overpass at Bloor St has an allowance for an additional track east of the current GO/UP Platform 1, but there are already 4 existing tracks in that section of the corridor, even if only 3 are active. The additional track is on the far west and is currently not served by a platform at the station. It would be on the bottom of this diagram of the station:

That being said, of Metrolinx is set on building an additional track on the east side, I think the main choke points are the edge of the Canadian Blood Services building and the townhomes/lofts at Wallace (and the associated redevelopment of the area around the new condos and the footbridge). There’s room to move the railpath eastward elsewhere in that section, although it would require the cooperation of property owners (the housing coop, the landscaping equipment yard, and the old scrapyard which is now being prepped for redevelopment to townhomes.

Seeing as there are already discussions underway about how to extend the railpath at least as far south as Dufferin, and eventually to the pedestrian overpass at Fort York, Metrolinx would be rather short-sighted to plan its removal without first exploring all possible options.

“Can you link to where that plan is published? I know the existing rail overpass at Bloor St has an allowance for an additional track east of the current GO/UP Platform 1, but there are already 4 existing tracks in that section of the corridor, even if only 3 are active. The additional track is on the far west and is currently not served by a platform at the station.”

I don’t think that there is a published plan for it but I looked at the station last Wednesday and walked around the platforms. On your diagram the top side of the station, the platform including the UP and the handicap platform are all set up to serve another track on the north side. There will have to be an additional track there for RER to run. The yellow edge of platform warning is installed and all that is needed is the installation of track and the removal of the safety railing for it to go into use. The track on the south (west) side only connects to the CP line to Milton and is not usable by the Kitchener or UPX trains.

“Seeing as there are already discussions underway about how to extend the railpath at least as far south as Dufferin, and eventually to the pedestrian overpass at Fort York, Metrolinx would be rather short-sighted to plan its removal without first exploring all possible options.”

Unfortunately I don’t think Metrolinx gives a damn. Their mind is made up and don’t try to confuse them with facts. The railpath might have to deviate away from the tracks for a few blocks but there will be an additional track on the north (east) side of the right of way. It is the only way to get the necessary capacity without the removal of the UPX service which is an amazing piece of technology that is meeting all of Metrolinx’ expectation and which has a high customer satisfaction rating from all of its passenger. I did not forget the “s” at the end of passenger.

Further to my comment above, I believe that the fourth track on the Dundas (west) side of the right of way is for the Milton trains which runs mainly on CP. This line makes a subway connection at Kipling and does not need another stop at Bloor Station.

The plans for the railpath extension and the footbridge are City of Toronto plans not Metrolinx and we all know how well Metrolinx listens to others.

Of note is a “Gap Filler” being promoted to bridge the gap between high platform passenger cars and the set back high platforms required on main line rail operations.

It was part of the Georgetown South EA back in 2008-2009. I can say with absolute certainty that Bloor GO Station is designed to accommodate another track to the east of the corridor, that it will require “land take” from the RailPath, and they are looking at ways to keep the path intact.

Seeing as there are already discussions underway about how to extend the RailPath at least as far south as Dufferin, and eventually to the pedestrian overpass at Fort York, Metrolinx would be rather short-sighted to plan its removal without first exploring all possible options.

Are they short-sighted to have allowed it to be constructed in the first place? The question becomes which will move more people: a reduced RailPath plus a mainline commuter track or a wider (existing) bike lane?

I believe that the fourth track on the Dundas (west) side of the right of way is for the Milton trains which runs mainly on CP. This line makes a subway connection at Kipling and does not need another stop at Bloor Station.

To clarify, GO owns both rail subdivisions in this area. To the west is the Lower Galt subdivision that connects to the CP-owned Galt subdivision at Lambton Junction (more popularly known by the CN name of West Toronto Junction/Diamond). The Lower Galt subdivision continues south to the Strachan Grade Separation/Fort York Pedestrian Bridge. As part of the terms of sale, GO/Metrolinx cannot build any new stations accessing this trackage.

“The Lower Galt subdivision continues south to the Strachan Grade Separation/Fort York Pedestrian Bridge. As part of the terms of sale, GO/Metrolinx cannot build any new stations accessing this trackage.”

Not that I can see any reason why GO would want to add another station in this area but do you have any idea why this stipulation was put in. It is not likely that CP will ever operate many freights down the lower Galt sub through the USRC.

Do you have any idea why this stipulation was put in. It is not likely that CP will ever operate many freights down the lower Galt sub through the USRC.

I’ve read the final agreement and talked with the infrastructure-side of CP, but it came from another internal group. It could be anything from wanting future payday if GO wants/needs to build a station to a miscommunication between current and future conditions. GO could negotiate around the edges, but it is more or less a take-it-or-leave-it proposition.

“This graphic is amusing for its complete contrast with the way that Metrolinx/GO presented electrification of their services during early days of public consultation. That hit a low point when it was suggested that electric trains might not work in snow.

“Note that the official line now is that lots of cities use this type of service, and that electrification is an integral part of the package.

“Metrolinx owes us all an apology for their initial foot-dragging and misinformation campaign.”

I remember that period. They were resistant to electrification even back in the David Miller era, even back when Mel Lastman was mayor, and they kept coming up with completely bogus excuses. I still don’t have any idea why. (I’m betting someone retired and someone else replaced them.)

I’m just glad that Metrolinx as an institution has changed its mind. I look forward to electrified, high-frequency GO.